Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 323. (Read 647062 times)

The court transcript disagrees. Provide evidence to the contrary that doesn't come from his blog (not under oath, not cross examined, years later, he can say whatever the hell he wants), otherwise this argument is just a bunch of fluff. It may, in theory, even be 100% correct, but without evidence it is still fluff.

Here is the letter from the forensic accountant in my case to the court appointed lawyer. He states that besides the receiver failing to provide any documentation in six years to prevent a trial, what limited material was produced failed to show what was alleged, and about 40% of the trades in the accounts were ERRORS being backed out after weekends by the bank. That certainly smells like they were doing money laundering for someone. This was what the reporter was curious about, and the way she asked me the question implied they were doing similar schemes elsewhere. That interview was NEVER published. Interesting that HSBC was caught allegedly laundering money in Geneva.

When this letter was sent to the court and I requested the discovery that I had never received in 7 years, Judge Keenan replied: “You have enough.” I was denied access to the very records I would need for a trial. It was clear that there was no intent to allow a trial or to hand me more evidence against the banks.

There will NEVER be a public trial having to do with NY banking. It would expose way too much and that would collapse the confidence in the entire financial system supported by the pretend regulators. So, they bring criminal indictments only against the corporation and the deal is signed before it is announced.

The court transcript disagrees. Provide evidence to the contrary that doesn't come from his blog (not under oath, not cross examined, years later, he can say whatever the hell he wants), otherwise this argument is just a bunch of fluff. It may, in theory, even be 100% correct, but without evidence it is still fluff.

13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him..

13 They sent some of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod to trap him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you’re genuine and you don’t worry about what people think. You don’t show favoritism but teach God’s way as it really is. Does the Law allow people to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay taxes or not?”

15 Since Jesus recognized their deceit, he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a coin. Show it to me.” 16 And they brought one. He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” His reply left them overcome with wonder.

In Armstrong's case he wanted a public trial and couldn't get one.

Well yes virtually everyone is committing crimes and could probably be convicted even if the trial process were completely fair.

Again, not fair, but fair and sane and legal are distinct.

There's the jailhouse lawyer version, and the real world version.

The whole system is not fair. It's terribly corrupt. It's abused. It is what it is.

Smooth is ignorant of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Did he attend high school?

What I agreed to read was that the bankers took money for their “own benefit” for I refused to all along to plead to taking my own money for we were never managing Japanese money, we bought the portfolios. I fail to see where the words I read even constituted anything close to a crime.

This is how the courts work. There is no difference between some terrorist organization handing a script to some captive to read on TV condemning his country and agreeing with his captors and the way the US legal system operates. The king’s lawyers (prosecutors) write the words to pretend to match the  law and it is all a dog and pony show. This is the ultimate face of corruption.

For the second time, the authority of the courts over all disputes, including disputes arising under the Constitution itself, is established right in the Constitution.

You don't get to decide whether his conviction was proper. He doesn't get to decide (and certainly not by posting his "legal arguments" on a blog). The courts get to decide.

To claim otherwise is to deny the structure of Constitution itself (Article 3, specifically).

I never said his conviction was ethical. And what AP said, while amusing, is also pretty much true. What is legal and what is ethical and/or sane are not the same thing.

You are not a citizen of the Constitution. You are a slave of some thing you call a country which is not my country. You can say he is convicted in your world. Go ahead and live in your unconstitutional lawless definition of a world.

I want nothing more to do with you.

The fact remains he was not convicted in my Constitutional country. And that is a fact. So there is nothing to overturn.

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law. Thus any definitions are totally meaningless.

I mean you've just failed even the most basic test of someone I would want to be affiliated with.

You have no ethical grounding.

The Constitution is not the law of the land, and has not been for some time.  Courts, police, and government agencies began to disregard it with abandon and no one seemed to mind (aside from a few mild complaints) so the precedent has been set.

 
 
Sorry man, I would have to say that you do not understand law at all.  What you are describing is sanity.

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law.

Fine, then he should go to court, prove it, and have his conviction overturned. Until that happens, he's a convicted criminal.

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.

Scripted pleas are not constitutional.

The strangest part of my own case was the fact that anyone who has ever attempted to go after Goldman Sachs & crew of Investment Bankers, has strangely encountered the heavy hand of government that is used to protect them resulting in the New Your Investment Bankers being called the UNTOUCHABLES

If not then the conviction stands.

Furthermore I see no evidence whatsoever that he did not have the option to refuse the plea and go to trial, as a trial date had been set.

Sure, and by its own terms, the courts get to decide. Has his conviction been vacated?

Abuse of Contempt of Court – Far more Common than People Realize

Scripted pleas are actually totally unconstitutional. You are supposed to plead in your own words and the judge is legally bound to accept your plea ONLY if he believes it and it is voluntary. That is just fiction for the justice system has become so corrupt, all they care about now is form, never substance. Here is Judge Kennan stating in my case that I must read from a script written by the government and not allowed to explain anything in my own words.

Bullshit. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution.

Don't bother with your non-sequeturs.

If you don't have a court document vacating his conviction anything further that you post is a bunch of opinion.